Ian Darling

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application regarding disruptive behavior allegedly caused by two tenants.

One of the named respondents brought a motion to be removed as a party on the basis that she was a guest, not a tenant.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that although she was not a tenant, she met the definition of a 'person' under the corporation's harassment rule and could be directly affected by the proceeding, thus warranting her inclusion to ensure an opportunity to be heard.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal seeking $10,000 for the respondent's alleged non-compliance with a previous Tribunal order.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce its own orders.

The applicant confirmed he was seeking compliance and would pursue enforcement through the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the subject matter was outside its jurisdiction.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's records case under Rule 19 of the Condominium Authority Tribunal Rules of Practice, arguing that all requested records had been provided.

The applicant opposed the motion, asserting that not all records had been provided.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that a legitimate dispute remained and the issues were within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant in a condominium records dispute brought a motion to remove the respondent's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because another lawyer from the same firm had previously provided legal services to the respondent and might be called as a witness.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it premature as the case was still in the negotiation stage and no evidence of an actual conflict of interest was provided.

The Tribunal held that a reasonably fair-minded person would not disqualify counsel simply for being associated with another lawyer who previously acted for the respondent.

The applicant submitted an application to the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding requests for records made in 2022.

The Tribunal found that the 2022 requests were deemed abandoned under section 13.10 of O. Reg. 48/01 because the application was submitted more than six months after the requests were made.

Despite being given opportunities to update the application with a new 2023 request, the applicant failed to remove references to the abandoned 2022 requests.

The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent in a condominium dispute brought a motion for a further adjournment, submitting three doctor's notes.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the first note provided no new information and the request was an abuse of process as the issue had already been decided.

The Tribunal noted that the second note regarding accessible parking was evidence for the substantive hearing, and the third note regarding written communication was an accommodation request that the Tribunal already meets.

The Tribunal ordered the case to resume and directed that the respondent's medical submissions remain confidential.

The respondent in a condominium parking dispute brought a motion requesting an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings due to medical reasons.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal denied the request, finding that an indefinite adjournment would cause significant delay and prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal noted that its written process and the ability to appoint a representative could accommodate the respondent's disability, and ordered the case to resume.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen a case that was closed during Stage 1 (Negotiation) due to inactivity.

The applicant had posted a message indicating a desire to move to mediation but failed to pay the required Stage 2 fee, despite receiving four automated warning messages.

Applying the Frey factors, the Tribunal found that posting a message did not constitute a genuine intention to move the case forward and that reopening the case would undermine the principle of finality.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen a Condominium Authority Tribunal case that was closed after 30 days of inactivity during the negotiation stage.

The applicant originally sought access to condominium records to investigate concerns regarding property maintenance and reserve fund usage.

Applying the Frey factors, the Tribunal declined to reopen the case, finding that the underlying dispute primarily concerned condominium governance and the consequences of the information in the records, rather than a dispute over records access under section 55 of the Condominium Act.

The motion was dismissed due to compelling concerns over the Tribunal's jurisdiction to address the substantive governance issues.

The applicant filed a case regarding a request for condominium records.

The respondent had provided a board response on December 6, 2023, but the applicant did not apply to the Tribunal until February 13, 2024, exceeding the 60-day statutory timeline.

The Tribunal found that under section 13.10(1) of O. Reg 48/01, the request was deemed abandoned and the Tribunal had no discretion to extend the timeline.

The application was dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the CAT's Rules of Practice.

The applicant condominium owner filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding a request for core and non-core records spanning 23 years.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received all entitled core records and that the broad request for non-core records constituted an unreasonable 'fishing expedition' made for an improper purpose.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $4,000 in costs to the respondent condominium corporation due to unreasonable conduct during the hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to merge two condominium records cases currently in the negotiation stage.

The Tribunal initially sent notice of the motion to the condominium corporation rather than its counsel, resulting in an order made without the respondent's input.

To ensure a fair and efficient process under Rule 4.1, the Tribunal corrected the order and directed that the two cases, which relate to records requests submitted within a short period, be merged into a single proceeding.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal regarding alleged nuisance and harassment in the condominium's gym.

The case was closed due to inactivity during the negotiation stage.

The applicant brought a motion to reopen the case and adjourn it until July 2024, citing a disability accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the motion to reopen and adjourn, noting the age of the file and the applicant's history of inactivity, but varied its rules to allow the applicant to request reopening before July 31, 2024.

The applicant, a board member of one condominium corporation, requested records from another condominium corporation with which it shares facilities.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Case due to a lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that under section 1.36(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998, it only has jurisdiction over disputes between an owner or mortgagee and the corporation, another owner, occupier, or mortgagee.

As this was a dispute between two corporations, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a non-residential owner of a parking unit and locker, filed an application challenging a condominium by-law that restricted her access to the building's recreational facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the dispute did not relate to a provision restricting an activity that causes a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption under the Condominium Act or its regulations.

The application was dismissed as it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondent in a condominium parking dispute brought a motion seeking a confidentiality order, dismissal of the case, or an adjournment.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal granted the confidentiality order on consent, finding the personal and medical information met the required standard.

The tribunal declined to dismiss the case, finding it was not a minor issue and had a reasonable prospect of success.

A partial adjournment was granted to allow the respondent time to prepare and participate in the process.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, brought an application against an owner in a different condominium corporation, alleging that a tree grown by the respondent constituted a nuisance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because section 1.36(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 does not grant jurisdiction over disputes between owners in different condominium corporations.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application with the Condominium Authority Tribunal alleging that the respondent condominium corporation allowed other unit owners to harass the applicant in the gym facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to jurisdictional concerns.

After reviewing the applicant's revised problem description, the Tribunal concluded that the dispute fell within its jurisdiction under Ontario Regulation 179/17, as it related to the corporation's rules governing nuisance and annoyance.

The Tribunal ordered that the application could proceed, limited to the corporation's responsibilities regarding the alleged harassment.

The applicants, a group of condominium owners, challenged a new rule requiring owners to exclusively use Airbnb for short-term rentals, alleging it was discriminatory and improperly implemented.

The application was brought as a dispute over a nuisance under the Condominium Act, 1998.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the rule addressed some nuisances, its broader purpose extended beyond the Tribunal's limited jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application regarding a dispute over an illuminated retail sign installed on the outside of their unit, which the respondent condominium corporation asked to be removed or altered.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the dispute related to changes to the common elements rather than a nuisance, annoyance, or disruption.

As the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over disputes regarding changes to common elements, the application was dismissed under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice.